Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MEMBER SWORN.

Major David Davies, for Montgomery County, took the Oath, and signed the Roll.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Legal and General Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords.]

Read a second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOLS (BUILDING SCHEMES).

Major PRESCOTT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps have been taken by his Department to urge county and local education authorities to expedite the submission of plans and the subsequent carrying out of building schemes relating to proposed new schools and additions and alterations to existing schools, in view of the number of unemployed skilled workmen in the building and allied trades at the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Board are drawing the attention of local education authorities to a Circular issued by the Local Government Board announcing the removal of the restriction imposed during the War on borrowing by local authorities, but the present shortage and high prices of materials present a by no means negligible obstacle to immediate action. As
I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 14th April, I am sure that the local education authorities have every desire to expedite these works as much as is practicable in view of local conditions and the supply of material.

Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — CHECKWEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.

Order for the Second Reading read.

Mr. HIRST: I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill deals with the production and manufacture of iron and steel, the casting of iron and steel, the getting of chalk and limestone from quarries, cement and lime works and dock labourers. This is not the first time that this Bill has been introduced. We are asking that the Bill should be on the same lines as checkweighing in connection with coal mines. Checkweighing was first brought into operation in coal mines in 1860, and since then various Amendments have been made to the Act. The question of checkweighing in various industries goes back a great number of years. In 1893 the steel and iron trade first brought it to official notice. In 1894a Committee of Inquiry was appointed by the Home Office, and Mr. Asquith, who was then Home Secretary, met a deputation from the different societies. Again, in 1896, Sir Matthew White Ridley met a deputation, and in 1897 another deputation went to the Home Office from the Trades Union Congress, headed by the secretary, who at that time was Mr. Hodge. In 1898 a deputation from the iron and steel trades met the Home Secretary and the demands put forward were: (1) that weighing should be made compulsory; (2) that particulars of the weights should be posted up where, the men could see them; (3) that facilities should be granted to workmen elected by their fellows to check the weights; and (4) that it should be made an offence to use moulds or vessels bearing an incorrectly stamped capacity. These things have been carried out for a number of years. The iron and steel people have been constantly boring with a view to getting this Bill passed into an Act, but they were never able to succeed. On 4th May, 1907, a Report was made by a Departmental Committee on checkweighing in the iron and steel trades—that is to say, on the question of granting to the workmen the right to have the weights of their output, upon which their wages were calculated, checked by their own independent representative. We find from the Reports of the Committees that the heads
of the Department suggested that these men should have the right to an Act whereby they could appoint their own men to supervise their business. A Bill was again produced in 1914 by the then Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna), but it got no further than Second Reading. Ever since then the workmen have been doing all in their power to try to get this Bill through, but they have not succeeded up to the present time. We contend that the time has arrived when the Bill should be made into an Act, and we hope that hon. Members will see to it that the Second Reading is passed. The Bill refers to tinplate workers, limestone quarry workers and also to dock labourers. We find that the dock labourers introduced this question so far back as 1908, when a Departmental Committee was appointed by Mr. H. J. Gladstone. After examining twenty-three witnesses, nineteen coming from the men's side and only four from the employers, it was suggested by the Departmental Committee that the time had arrived when these workmen should have the right to appoint their own checkweighmen, so as to get an accurate test of the weight and measurement of their work. Some of my hon. Friends in the House gave evidence before these Departmental Committees, and, no doubt, will have something to say with reference to the evidence which was given I trust that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. GRUNDY: I have the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the Motion, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wentworth Division (Mr. Hirst). It is a long time since the workmen first asked for this elementary right, and the time has come when there should be no further delay on the part of Parliament in granting the men the right of having a checkweigher in the various industries where they are paid upon the weight that is produced by their labour. I speak as one with some knowledge of checkweighing, because I was deputy-weighman for six years, and I have been a checkweigher for the last twenty-five years. During the whole of my experience I have never known, with but one exception, the question of the weighing of the material in the industry with which I was connected causing the slightest friction. The employers on their part selected a man in whom they placed every confidence to see that a just weight was
recorded—this is in the mining industry—and allowed the workmen the right, which has been conceded since 1860, to select one in whom they had confidence that they would make a just and accurate record of the weight. With the one exception I have mentioned, I have never known a manager of the quarries to interfere with those two men in the performance of the duties appertaining to their office. That one exception was where a tare was being altered. The manager himself was not present. He was represented by other officials connected with the mine. When the tare was altered—it was in favour of the men to the extent of a few pounds—the manager ordered the weighman to divert the tare back to the old weight. I mention that to show that, at least during my thirty years of experience, in no instance has it been a cause of dissension between employer and workman. On the occasion of this difficulty we desired to summon the manager for causing the tare to be altered, but we found that we ought to have summoned the man who altered the tare and not the manager who gave the order for it to be altered. That is an anomaly which might well be removed.
During this long period these trades, by repeated deputations, have been approaching Parliament for what is an elementary right of the workmen to see that their material is weighed properly. It is merely a matter of equity and justice and one which the employers ought to be the first to welcome, because it is as much in their interest as in that of the workmen. It strikes me, as a new Member, that this long delay must, as it has done, always leave with the workman the idea that Parliamentary methods are slow and cumbersome and that they have to resort to other methods which are not either in the interests of the employer, the workman or the country generally. We are hoping to-day that this long period of delay will have come to an end and that the Government will expedite matters. I have gone very carefully into the evidence which was given before the Departmental Committee, and the strange thing to me—and that again makes me wonder why there has been so long a delay—was in respect to the iron and steel trades, which are rather complicated in their method of gauging the weight. In that evidence, of the fifty-one witnesses called on behalf of the various trade organisations, forty-seven expressed their desire to have an equal right to
appoint checkweighers and to subscribe to their payment. It appeared to me that the employers themselves admitted the right of the men and raised no insuperable objection to it. They could see that it was only equitable and just that the men should have the same rights of ascertaining the weight as the employers had. Officials of the trade organisation repeatedly stated that they had weekly complaints in respect of that industry as to the men being dissatisfied with the system that at present obtained. I believe also, especially in respect to the tinplate trade, by the force of their combination and by the solidarity of the men in the trade unions they have in at least three large works, by mutual arrangement with the employers, already, set up checkweighers and done the very thing we are asking Parliament to legalise.
In respect of dock labourers, a very curious thing occurred. No fewer than a thousand owners of docks, wharves and quays were written to and asked if they had any objection to the principle of introducing checkweighing. Replies were received from 156, of whom only ten raised any objection. The ten were invited to attend the Committee, but only one attended to give evidence against the principle of legalising checkweighers. In that industry also we had the some complaints by trade, union officials about the weight the men were receiving, with the result that severel strikes had occurred. At least, I remember my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton), in giving evidence, cited a strike that occurred at Belfast, I believe in 1907—a stoppage of industry because workmen wanted the right to check, either by weight or measure, what they depended upon for their weekly subsistence. I do not think there is a a single employer in this House who will say this principle is not right and just. They may raise certain difficulties which may occur in various industries in weighing, but I am positive that no fair-minded employer or owner will ever object to the principle of the thing. The principle itself is one that we admit in every phase of our social life. We have our inspectors of weights and measures to see that a fair and just weight is given as between the seller and the buyer, and if a man is found whose scales are unjust he is punished, because, if we get less weight than we pay for, we hunger. By the same rule we have the inspectors
who see that our food is not adulterated, because, if we get adulterated food, we die. So the principle goes on. During the War one of the strong things brought about by legislation was that if a seller gave more than the measure, he was summoned. I sat on a bench of magistrates, and the proprietor of an off-licence who had given above the legal pint of beer was brought before us Probably that did not occur often, but on this occasion it had occurred, and I remember that this man was brought into Court, and summoned for giving the long pull. The long pull was not very long, because I remember seeing on the desk in the Court what was called a measure, and it would not have slaked the thirst of a sparrow if it had drunk it. In solemn consultation afterwards we warned this man that he must never let it occur again, and so far as I can recollect we let him off on payment of costs. I mention this in order to point out that it is part of the English law that there should be a true weight and a just measure, and why for all this long period this should have been withheld from these trades, it is difficult to conceive. On hearing that the principle may be accepted by the Government, I think it is unwise to delay the House by any lengthy remarks.
We have in this Bill the opportunity of saying that in future a man shall have the right to see that the weight of his work is correct and just, and by providing that opportunity we can allay the spirit of distrust and suspicion that exists amongst the men, which ultimately results in the bitter conviction that something is wrong by withholding from them the right of testing these weights. We can alloy that feeling and arouse between the workmen and employers in these industries, a feeling of satisfaction and concord, and a feeling that a man is getting his just reward for his labour. Not only that, but this continued delay brings to the workman the idea that he must never trust to legislation to alter the wrongs from which be feels he is suffering, and it makes him resort to the weapon of the strike. It makes him feel that his only safety in bringing about these necessary reforms is in the solidarity of his trade union, and that only in the collective effort of his organisation can he secure reform. I think we ought to do what, in my opinion, is the right of Parliament to do, and what the
working classes of this country have the right to expect Parliament to do, and that is to set up machinery so that wherever men are paid by weight or measure they shall have the same right as the employer to the ascertainment of weight or measure.
I noticed, from the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, that one very great fear was expressed repeatedly by the employers that the employment of check-weighers, particularly in the mixing of the different things that go to make up iron and steel, trade secrets would be given away. The fear was that the check-weigher might give away some of the trade secrets. Personally, I think the check-weigher takes as much interest in the firm as the employer or the workman. With regard to the pit with which I was connected that when it was doing well I always had a feeling of jubilation, and when we had a small output it always depressed me, and I am sure it depressed me to the same extent as it did the employer or the workman. As employers fear that the check-weighers might give some of their trade secrets away, there is a Clause in the Bill which, provides that if he does he is liable to six months imprisonment with or without hard labour. There are other words in the Bill which may be improved in Committee which say, "Or any other information." That seems a rather wide term and it may be construed very widely, but I am sure that in Committee the words would be put more definitely as to what is meant. I hope Parliament will accept this Bill, so that the workmen can feel assured that in Parliament these matters that require adjustment, and that can be better adjusted by Parliamentary action than by the collective effort I have described is going to be brought about speedily.

Mr. SIMM: I desire to support this Bill. The strongest possible argument has been advanced by the speaker who has just sat down. He said that we do not want to cause friction. He might have gone further and told the House that in the industry with which he is connected, the mining industry, no influence has been more effective in removing friction, and bringing about confidence than the employment of check-weighmen, I do not want to anticipate what is going to be said by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), but I feel sure that he can tell the House that in the docks and
wharves of this country, not only on odd occasions, but week by week, stoppages take place because men are distrustful of not getting the right measure for their work. Strong endeavours have been made during the past few months, and those endeavours are being continued, to try to create mutual confidence between employer and employed. Whatever the machinery may be that is set up for the purpose of cementing this, it will be entirely unavailing if that confidence is not thorough, and if on the workmen's side you have a belief that he is either being robbed or may be robbed in the output of his work. The only possible way of getting absolute confidence is to see to it that there is some measure which will ensure to the workman, whatever his output is, that he will get full value for his work. That, I think, is the most important thing this Bill can do. It is of no value setting up industrial councils if you have between the workmen and the employer a constant cause of friction, and no influence can be used more powerfully to remove that friction than the principle embodied in this Bill.
There is a large number of places where perhaps men are employed in getting minerals, in numbers of from twenty up to 100, where they lack that spirit of confidence which the check-weighman gives. He is always there at the pit-head. His job may be a light one, but it is a very important one. While there is no provision in this Bill regarding the payment of check-weighmen we are to-day in the very unfortunate position of having throughout the country very large numbers of men who are short of an arm, a leg, or an eye. They are not fit for the ordinary tasks that will be imposed upon them in the industrial world. But if men are required for light jobs of this kind I regret to say that there will be too many men able to fill them. I hope that this Bill will not only be accepted by the Government, but, so vital is it to the smooth working of our industrial system, that every endeavour will be made by the Government to carry it into law as speedily as possible. Some time ago I remember being involved in a dispute in a case in which a small body of men, about 120, were employed. I am quite certain, could we have got to the bottom of these men's trouble, not only had they cause for complaint, but there were gross violations of the Truck Act going on in this particular industry. The men were being robbed
not only on the output of their labour, but they were compelled to buy goods from the firm likewise, and were being robbed in that process. So long as these things continue you cannot have a smooth working of our industrial system. Every effort should be used to get the nation to pull together as strongly, industrially and socially within the next five years as it did during the past five years with regard to the War. And with this object every proposal that tends to remove distrust and create confidence ought to be accepted by this House. For that reason I have much pleasure in accepting this Bill.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In supporting this Bill I represent the steel and tinplate trade. During my official experience in my society for the last twenty years this question of check-weighing has caused more discontent and dissatisfaction among our members than any other question that I know of. I will give one or two illustrations, which I am sure will convince the representative of the Government that it is necessary that this Bill should become law. This Bill is exactly similar, Clause for Clause and word for word, to the Bill introduced by Mr. McKenna in 1914. The Bill was dropped on that occasion by the Government because of the pressure of business. Then the War broke out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) and myself have kept our members quiet for the last five years without troubling the Government in so far as this Bill is concerned. You did not have a more patriotic and loyal body of workmen in the whole country during the period of the War than the members of my society. We had not a single strike from Scotland down to South Wales during that period. It was not that the men had no reason for it, because they had sufficient reason, even so far as this Bill is concerned, owing to the changes in the arrangements in the works with regard to moulds and so on for the making of steel, as compared with the pre-war arrangements.
This Bill is to protect the honest employer as well as the workmen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton comes more into touch with employers in other parts of the country. But so far as South Wales is concerned, taken generally, the employers in this trade are the best and most honest body of employers I have
ever met. But even in South Wales we have got our dishonest employers, and we want to protect the honest employers against the dishonest ones. Some of these employers have asked, "Why do you want check-weighing? Cannot you trust the employer?" My reply is that in every steel works and tinplate works and in every dock the employer appoints a check-weighman himself to see that the workman is not overpaid. We simply ask now that this check-weighman be put on to see that the employer does not underpay his workmen. We are simply asking for what the employer already has in so far as the steel and tinplate trades are concerned. The right hon. Member for Gorton and myself were in a certain district, and the men complained that they were being underpaid in so far as steel ingots were concerned. Of course, we had the privilege of weighing the ingots. We did weigh them. The small ingot weighed 15 cwt. 2 qrs. The large ingot weighed 19 cwt. The employer was there himself, and he saw the weights on the weighbridge. We put in our claim, asking the employer to pay the correct weight that had been ascertained on the weighbridge. He, said "The employer on the other side of the road only pays on 14 cwt. 2 qrs. for the same mould. Therefore, until you get that employer to come up to my standard I am not prepared to pay for the 15 cwt. 2 qrs." The Member for Gorton and myself discussed the matter. There was only one method of procedure, and that was to bring the men out on strike. We do not want these barbarous strikes if employers can settle these matters for us. But in this case we had to threaten to hand in notices before we could get this employer to pay the men on the ascertained weight, because there was a difference between the method in the works on the other side of the road and the method in the works where the weight had been ascertained.
These ingots are rolled into tinplate bars for the purpose of manufacturing tinplate. The weight to be ascertained was 19 cwt. 2 qrs. The steel employer sells the tin-plate bar by weight, and you have to work the tinplate bars out at a certain weight per foot. It is 16 lbs. per foot. The men who produce the tinplate bar can easily calculate the weight of that bar simply by taking a number of feet and multiplying it by the 16 lbs. per foot. The employer was getting paid for 21 cwt. for that bar after it had been manu-
factured, although the workman was only paid for 19 cwt. 2 qrs. the pit weight that was produced. I think these two illustrations ought to convince the Government that these men are simply asking for justice and fair play. We trust that the Government will give this Bill a Second Reading, and also afford facilities to pass it into law, if only for the time we have waited since 1914, and thereby show that they are prepared to do something in return for the patriotic and loyal way in which these men supported the Government during the prosecution of the War.

Mr. SEXTON: I will endeavour not to detain the House at any great length on this subject, but I do want the House to understand how it applies to and affects the labourers at the docks in a most peculiar and distinct manner as compared with other trades. I had not only the opportunity of giving evidence before the Departmental Committee, but I happened to be a member of that Departmental Committee, which was set up by Mr. Gladstone, now Lord Gladstone. The evidence we produced there was of such a character that even the employers themselves on that Departmental Committee agreed to the principle of check-weighing. The only objection raised was that the principle should be extended beyond the workmen in the interests of the employers to iron ore which was shipped from foreign countries. I will give the House two cases which will show the horrible demoralising effects of the present system upon the men who are working by piece. We are asked, and I hope the response will be generous, to increase production and output. I subscribe to that policy most heartily, but if the men who are asked to increase output and production, are refused the legal right to make inquiry as to whether they are getting legal wages or not, how can you expect men in that position to be encouraged to increase output and production. I will give a case which the Under-Secretary can find in the evidence of the Departmental Committee, and which happened in Aberdeen. When we went to Aberdeen, where the men were unorganised in 1893, the conditions there were of a most horrible and demoralising character. Not only were the men deprived of their legitimate tonnage, but their money for the stated amount of tonnage by the employer, whose word they had to accept or else get the sack, was handed over to one man to pay the gang in a
public-house. The result was that not only was there a deduction from the tonnage in the first instance, but there was a further deduction by the man who had the money in his hand, and who told the men in the public-house what he thought was the tonnage. Therefore, there were two deductions, and, of course, there was the slate in the public-house, and at the end of the week, when the payments were made, the slate had something to say to the tonnage as well as the other influences. The first thing we had to do was to break up the public-house business. We inserted a rule in the by-laws, that any member found collecting his wages in a public-house would be fined heavily, and expelled from the union, and we soon smashed that combination. By surreptitious means we discovered, through the Custom House, that one gang of men had been deprived of £114 in a given period, and we took action against the man concerned and recovered that £114. That evidence was given at the Departmental Committee. I think we received it because the man was afraid to face the music, for the Court had really no jurisdiction.
There was another case in Grangemouth. The men who work in Grangemouth are really honest, upright, straightforward, Godfearing men, respectably housed, who were born and lived there, and some of them elders of the Kirk. A gang of those men got similar information and took action, and went to the Sheriff's Court, but the sheriff on some technical legal point, either that he had no jurisdiction or that somebody else ought to be sued, while he agreed that the men were being robbed, gave a verdict for the defendant. The defendant, who was also a member of the Kirk, and an elder of the Kirk, took advantage of the technical flaw, and actually sued those men for the costs of the case and got a verdict, and was on the very eve of selling up their houses and furniture, and throwing them on to the streets. The union, of course, had to come to their assistance, and pay the legal costs. That is a most monstrous state of things, and a most iniquitous state of things, and I have met some employers who would blush even to know that there were such employers in existence But when we are asked to trust employers, there are employers and employers, and the best trust we can get is prevention. One ounce of prevention is worth three tons of cure.

Mr. R. M'LAREN: I rise to support this Bill very heartily, and I am entirely
in sympathy with what has been said by hon. Members opposite. But in connection with the Bill there are one or two matters upon which, I think, there might be some amendment. When I went through the Bill of 1914, I discovered some things which I suggest the author of this Bill ought to try and remedy. In the first place, in connection with Clause 1, in Subsection (2) (c), referring to the getting of chalk or limestone from quarries, it seems to me that those who drew up the Bill have failed to understand that there are kinds of quarries which ought to come under the operation of the Bill. In the county of Aberdeen there are a very large number of granite quarries of such a size as could come into the operation of this Bill. Perhaps it may be the case that it was discovered in taking evidence by the Committee that they had a very good method there already of discovering the weight of material. The Aberdeen quarries and the whinstone quarries in Scotland are mostly employed in the making of setts, and the workmen there are very intelligent and understand exactly how many setts it takes to make a ton of the various sizes, but, notwithstanding that, there is a rule there to the effect that when a man's setts are being weighed he himself sees them put into the wagon and goes himself to the weighbridge. He sees the exact weight and takes a note of it. In these quarries also there is a large amount of road metal broken, and the method of payment is by measurement, and in measuring these bings of stone the man is present himself and sees the surveyor of the district measure the stone, and there is no difficulty in paying the exact amount as far as he is concerned. At the same time it might be the case that in some of the larger quarries they might wish to have a check-weigher, and I see no reason why they should not have the opportunity of appointing a check-weigher if they desire to have one, and I suggest that the authors of this Bill might, in Committee, insert words applying to with-stone and granite quarries as well as to chalk and limestone quarries. We have limestone quarries in Scotland, but they are very small, and I do not think the men there employed would be able to pay for a check-weigher. Some of the steel factories in Scotland are not very large, but there are steel and iron factories large enough to have check-weighers. In Section 4 of this
Bill we find that we can have intermittent checkweighing in certain cases, but I think that difficulty might be got over by one of the workmen himself doing his own work, and at the same time being employed legally to cheek any material that might go across the weights. I know that some of the men themselves think such a system might be possible. In this Section 4 I think it is a mistake to say "The employer shall give to the check-weigher." I think it is a mistake to put the word "employer" in there, because the employer himself cannot possibly be on the ground while this is going on, and while you might make him responsible for the deeds of the men that he employs for the purpose, I think it would be better to alter the word to "manager" or "official in charge of the operations."
1.0 P.M.
In connection with Section 2, Sub-section (3), I find it speaks about the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1908, and speaks of the powers, duties, removal, and remuneration of check-weighers. I wish to point out to the hon. Members responsible for this Bill that the Clauses in the Coal Mines Regulations Acts in many cases will not and cannot apply in connection with this Bill. For instance, if you take Section 14 of the Act of 1887, Sub-section (3), we find that one part of the duty of the check-weigher is to check deductions in connection with dirt weighing. In connection with iron and steel work there can be no such thing as deductions, and I would suggest that you should have regulations drawn up for yourselves, to take in all the various things and the various operations of the different trades which will be brought under this Bill. Something was said by the Seconder of the Bill in connection with the Coal Mines Act. I can well remember that the most unfair things were done prior to check-weighers being appointed in connection with coal mines, but I want the House to understand that long before a Bill was brought into the House of Commons to make it legal to appoint a check-weigher, in many of the Scottish mines round the district to which I belong there were men appointed who were called "justice men"—men appointed to get justice—and the old term "justice men" still holds good in Scotland. "Check-weigher" is an English term, which we Scots people do not take very kindly to. There were many
cases where the owner did a most unjust thing in connection with the weighing. First of all we found that the tare of the hutch was made always to suit the owner's side, and the weighing of the coal was such that there was weighing only to hundredweights which was, of course, most unjust. There were sometimes three hutches to the ton, which might be 22½ cwt., or it might be more. In any case it was utterly wrong, but to-day we have a system of checkweighing in the industry which I think is a credit to very many collieries. On the question of helping on honest employers, I think checkweighing under the Coal Mines Regulations Acts has done a great deal to foster that spirit. As a matter of fact, it is a great thing and a good thing if the men themselves put on an honest man to be a check-weigher. They do not always do it, I am sorry to say, and sometimes they put on a man who is anything but honest, and the result is that by-and-by the industry suffers very badly. I remember a case when I was a colliery manager myself, when the colliery appeared to run out and the men found that they were not able to pay the amount of a decent wage for a check-weigher, and they gave the man notice to leave. They said they were very sorry to have to do so, and they came to me, and I said: "I will tell you what I will do. We have got on very well together, and there has been no trouble while this man has been on. He is a fair-minded man, and it is a good thing for us all to have him. I will therefore make a bargain with you. I will give him a wage for doing a little work, if you will give him a certain amount to make up a decent wage." They did so, and he continued to be a check-weigher until the pit stopped. There are cases where we have managers and owners asking the men to appoint a decent check-weigher. There is one thing that makes the owners afraid of those check-weighing Acts. I speak for Scotland, and with full knowledge of what I am going to say, having been engaged in mining operations for forty years, and I want to say this, that I have discovered that in very many cases check-weighers have been the cause of a good deal of friction. By saying very many cases, I do not mean that there are many of such men, but that one man may cause a good many cases of friction. I have found cases repeatedly where some men not only undertook the work of check-weighers,
but went beyond their duties and did things antagonistic to the management of the collieries. I have known of a case, for example, where a check-weigher so far forgot himself as to put up a notice, alongside the notice of the colliery manager, to compel the pit to be idle on a day the men were asked to work, because of some orders in connection with shipping. That was the cause of a good deal of friction between the manager and the men, and what the owners feel in connection with the Check-weighing Bill is this: they are afraid that the power of the union will be exercised through the check-weigher, as has been, done in a great many cases in connection with the coal mines, and I am sure, if those who are bringing forward this Bill would satisfy the owners upon that point, there would be no difficulty whatever in getting it passed.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by the union exercising powers through the check-weighers, because I do not know of anything of the kind?

Mr. M'LAREN: I am speaking from the coal-mining side. It is a fact in Scotland—I cannot speak for England and Wales that all the check-weighers, as a a rule, are agents for the union. A great many of these unwise men, as I say they are, undertake to do things which are not only antagonistic to the miners themselves but to the union, and constantly cause friction. That is the ground on which a great many owners are afraid that some of these unwise men may exercise power over the union to the detriment of the employers as a whole, and if the owners could be satisfied upon this point, there would be no difficulty. At the same time, I am one who believes a great deal in common sense, and I am satisfied, if common sense be exercised on both sides—on the side of the employers as well as the employés—and if, as an hon. Gentleman said, there can be between both sides mutual confidence and mutual trust in each other, then I think it will go a great length to satisfy the demand on both sides, and bring about a period of rest, which the country very much requires at the present time. I trust the Government will take the opportunity of getting this Bill passed through as quickly as possible, and give to the people who have asked it for so many years, a
thing which they very much need, and. which they ought to have had a good many years ago.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am sure the Debate to-day has been a most businesslike one, and the speakers who have taken part in it have addressed the House with moderation, and with a knowledge of what they are talking about, which is most helpful to all of us. Let me say at once, on behalf of the Home Office and the Government, that I accept the Bill, and that the Home Office will do its best to make the Bill law this Session. The Home Office had intended to introduce this identical Bill, but the fortunes of the ballot enabled the hon. Members who have introduced it to get in first. I congratulate them on their priority of position, but I can assure them we will do in the Home Office everything in our power to pass the Bill into law. The Bill itself, as one hon. Member said, is word for word, schedule for schedule, the same Bill that the Home Office has introduced into this House on previous occasions, and also the same Bill that was once introduced as a private Bill by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), who has all his Parliamentary career taken such a keen interest in this particular subject. May I say—and this is all I say, because the House is agreed, I think, in the justice of the measure, and also it has felt that it was time it was carried into law—I am, and I know the Government is, in full accord with the desire to make this measure one of those tokens of the intention of the Ministry to cultivate the best possible feeling between employer and employed. There is no doubt about it, according to the evidence I have read, that there is a suspicion on the part of many working men that they have not been fairly paid on their piece and measurement work. This Bill will make suspicion impossible in the industries to which it refers, and in the Bill itself it is possible, when it becomes law, to apply it to any other industry not mentioned, and I hope the Bill will help to close the breach, if and where it exists, between employer and employés, and make for that good feeling and co-operation which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who can speak with greater authority than
I can, is the essential preliminary to industrial peace, to increased production, and to the supremacy of our trade within and without the realm. I hope, therefore, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. HODGE: May I just say how much we feel obliged to the Government for the indication which has been given of their intention to push this Bill through? I do not like looking back, it is so long since I first introduced into this House a Check-weighing Bill, and I have had, as one of the previous speakers said, a demonstration of the patience of the workpeople. Probably I have been somewhat responsible for that, because I have hated industrial war just as I have hated war between nations, and I have always advised the men to wait rather than be discouraged, although I believe in our industry we could have compelled it if we had taken the course of entering upon war. References have been made to the Committee of Inquiry, and to any Member of this House who may doubt as to the necessity of a Bill like this, or as to it being a protection to the employers, I would point out that the chairman of the Tinplate Makers' Association of South Wales, and who was a Member of this House during the 1910 Parliament or the 1911 Parliament, in his evidence said that he would welcome a check-weigher, because a week or two previously to his giving evidence they had lost 400 boxes of plates. If there had been a check-weighman there would have been such a check as would have made such an error impossible. So from that point of view, it is a protection to the employer. I beg to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for what he has said in respect to the Government's intention.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I would not have risen on this occasion but for a few words offered by my hon. Friend opposite. I do so, having had to do with checkweighing for over thirty years, and I want to say, as a result of my long experience, I have not come across a case such as my hon. Friend has mentioned. On the contrary, as my hon. Friend must well know, the check-weigher has been the instrument of making peace between employers and employés. Not only has the check-weigher in the Durham coalfield and elsewhere been called upon to see justice done, but very often, and with the
consent of the union, has made peace when strikes would have occurred. I am more than thankful to the Government for accepting this Bill, but I trust that the people who will be called upon to put it into active operation will see to it that the right men are appointed. You want a man with a head on his shoulders, because time after time peace is kept by the check-weigher until things are put right. I have been told that, so far as check-weighing in the mines is concerned, if the men could not afford to pay the check-weigher it would have paid the royalty owner over and over again to keep him on. These things show at once that something must be done in justice to the men. I trust that the Government will expedite this matter and give to the other industries the same advantages as are afforded to the miners, and if that is done I feel sure that such disputes as have occurred in the past will never occur in the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move
That the Bill be now lead a second time.
This measure is designed to deal with a very remarkable omission in our present law regarding cruelty to animals. More than forty years ago it was provided that, in cutting operations performed for purposes of experiment, anæsthetics should be used. Where, therefore, live animals are cut, or, as it is generally called, vivisected, for purposes of research, anæsthetics are now compulsory. But in the far larger number of cases, where no research enters into the matter, and the operation is merely carried out for the convenience and profit of the owner of the animal, no anæsthetics of any kind, no humane device for preventing pain, is laid down. The advance of medical science has not brought any alleviation of suffering to animals in the way that it has to human beings. It has, indeed, too often greatly increased their sufferings, because there are now performed on animals surgical operations which were never dreamed of
in the days before the discovery of anæsthetics revolutionised surgery. There are, no doubt, many humane owners who make a point of demanding the use of anæsthetics for their animals, but in the enormous majority of cases horses and dogs do not have the benefit of anæsthetics in the complicated and severe operations in which they would invariably be used as a matter of course in the case of human beings. This Bill has never been discussed in the House of Commons, but it has been very considerably discussed in the country, and has been modified to meet the views of agriculturists and of the veterinary profession. I first drafted a Bill on this subject in 1912, as the result of myself seeing a great many veterinary operations at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and elsewhere. In its original form the Bill, besides making anæsthetics compulsory in the case of certain scheduled operations, forbade the castration of pigs and bulls over the age of six months except in the case of disease. This was strongly opposed by agriculturists, and to meet their views I reintroduced the Bill in 1913 without the provision as to pigs and bulls, and, in the case of horses, limiting the compulsory use of anæsthetics to the gelding of two-year-olds and upwards, where, owing to the larger size of the blood vessels, the operation is more protracted and painful than in the case of colts. In this way agricultural opposition was disarmed, and in 1913 the. Cattle Diseases Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture wrote approving of the Bill in its amended form. Clause 3 would enable the Board of Agriculture to extend the Schedules and to apply them to other domestic animals, after fulfilling certain necessary provisions to secure that agricultural interests are not forgotten. Ill-luck in the ballot prevented any progress with the Bill in 1913, and in 1914 further changes were male in the scheduled operations to meet criticisms which had been developed by a very considerable correspondence in the columns of the "Veterinary Record," the "Veterinary News," the "Veterinary Journal," and elsewhere. I mention these details of the history of the Bill to show that the proposal in its present form has been very carefully discussed, and that it is the result of an agreement to meet those agricultural and veterinary interests which had the best claim to be considered. The scheduled operations are limited to those
on horses and dogs, and a distinction is drawn between operations which should be performed under a general anæsthetic and those for which only a local anæsthetic is required. I know it may seem rather curious to lay down anything stringent in the way of distinction between local and general anæsthetics, but I am told by young and progressive members of the veterinary profession that there is so much prejudice among certain of the older men against the use of anæsthetics that, unless it is definitely laid down what shall be used, many operators will go on with the present practice of using no effective anæsthetic whatever. I may perhaps quote the opinion of the "Veterinary Journal" on these Schedules. It says:
We know full well that all the operations named in the three Schedules, and other is besides, would almost invariably be performed under anæsthesia if the veterinary surgeon were able to please-himself. Unfortunately, however, the owner of the patient frequently refuses to pay for it, and, as the veterinary surgeon is dependent upon fees for his livelihood, he cannot afford the additional time and expenditure without compensation. He has consequently either to perform the operation without the anæsthetic or, by refusing, to allow it, to be done, with the probable infliction of greater pain, by a quack, and to run the risk of offending and losing a client.
Having quoted the "Veterinary Journal" and referred to other veterinary publications, I ought perhaps to say that this Bill was in no way suggested by the veterinary profession. Obviously, it would be a very invidious matter for them to bring forward. I have, however, had the help of veterinary surgeons, who have been good enough to give very valuable criticism and advice. This Bill has from the first, met with strong support among horse-owners. It is going, I hope, to be seconded to-day by an hon. Member who takes a great interest in racing, and I am quite certain that, unless the measure was considered imperative in the interests of humanity, we should not have had the support which has boon forthcoming in the past. More than one veterinary surgeon has confessed to me his feelings of horror at the sufferings he has had to inflict owing to the refusal of owners to allow the use of anæsthetics. In view of the fact that it has long been recognised that, if a horse is unfit for work, no financial consideration shall absolve its owner from liability to a charge of cruelty if he does work it, it is surely not too much to provide that where owners for their own convenience and profit subject their helpless animals to severe and
painful surgical operations, they should be compelled to find the few shillings which are necessary to secure the use of an anæsthetic.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I have the privilege of seconding this Motion.
I venture to think that the time is particularly opportune for the introduction of such a Bill as this. Ever since the Armistice was inaugurated we appear to have been almost exclusively considering the bettering of our own conditions in the new order of things which is to come after the War. I am glad to see, by reference to the Order Book of the House, that there are indications of the recognition of the claim to some better treatment and better lives of the four-legged section of the world, especially in the case of horses—and dogs—which have undoubtedly done their bit in the recent War. Quite apart from that somewhat remote consideration, I, as one who, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, has something to do with horses—I may mention they possess the courtesy title of race-horses, and there is no other legal category in which they can be placed—had a good deal of personal experience of the conditions which prevail. I say without hesitation that in the case of many of the operations included in these schedules the present system is barbarous and inhumane in the highest degree. Especially is this so in the country districts where anæsthetics are not easily obtainable, and where quack operators compete with qualified men. Unless you have statutory compulsion of this kind the same condition of things will prevail for all time.
So far as I am concerned, when this Bill gets into Committee I think I shall propose its extension to one or two operations not included in it. Of course we know that legally the process of docking is not permissible, but it is a matter of common knowledge—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Home Office (Sir Hamar Greenwood) knows it—that the system of docking prevails to an enormous extent, because, in view of all the circumstances, you cannot be there to prevent it. Inasmuch as in some cases docking is a legitimate and necessary operation, I will throw out the suggestion in Committee that docking might be legalised, provided the same provisions concerning anæsthetics are made to apply to it. In the case of firing horses some such provision might
also be made. I have known one or two dear old creatures among the race-horses to which I have just referred who have been fired so often that every time the door of their box is opened they simply and instinctively lift their legs.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Member will see line firing is already provided for in the Bill.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am not sure it should not be further extended. My point is this: That this Bill recognises that the time has come to extend these humanitarian principles to the dumb creation, which is helpless without our intervention. I think it would be a very fine tribute to one of the better aspects of the War if instead of brutalising us it left us in possession of these views and practices that humanise and make us recognise the sufferings of the dumb creation as we have recognised human suffering, so that we will do all in our power in future to prevent it. I do not know that it requires any special argument or appeal to commend this Bill to the Government.

Major Earl WINTERTON: Unfortunately, I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend as I did not know the Bill was coming on just at the moment. I should, however, like to congratulate him on his persistent and painstaking effort to get this particular piece of legislation passed. This, I think, is the second or the third Session in which he has introduced this Bill. I think that all who have the interests of animals at heart must be very glad that the opportunity has arisen on this Friday afternoon for, at least, discussing the Bill. I would like to say that I agree most sincerely with what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for South Hackney. I think in this, as in so many other matters, one of the most valuable lessons that we can learn from the War, both as individuals and as a nation, is that we ought to do everything we can to lessen the sum-total of animal suffering, and especially in the cases with which this Bill will deal, of suffering which is largely avoidable. No one who has been in the East, as I have recently, can fail to be saddened and disgusted by the amount of avoidable cruelty to animals. Personally, it is the kind of thing that always—in my case at all events—tinges my feelings with a depression that I otherwise should not have felt in those wonderful sunlit lands
to realise that daily, almost hourly, all kinds of unnecessary cruelty was being done to animals. It may be asked, How that particular phase of animal cruelty is affected by this Bill? It is affected in this way: We in this country have always been what I may describe as the "standard bearer" of the prevention of cruelty to animals. It is really action that has been taken in this country which has enabled the world generally, by successive and progressive stages, to arrive at a higher standard of the treatment of animals. I believe I am historically correct in saying it was in this country that the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed so long ago as the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the example which was set by this country has been followed, I am glad to say, by almost every other country in the world. Invariably the laws regarding animals in this country and their treatment is accepted by other countries as the model for the laws they should make and the treatment they should accord. Therefore it is most important that we should continue to be in the van of progress in the matter of our relations to, and the treatment of, animals.
As regards the present state of affairs in operation, I am bound to say that having studied some literature which my hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to give me—quotations from the various veterinary journals, and papers connected with the veterinary service and Press, everything I have read confirms me in the opinion which I have formed in my personal and private experience that the law in regard to operations upon animals, apart altogether from the question of experimental research, is very unsatisfactory. There is a case given in one of these veterinary journals where a man who had a horse with a tumour asked his veterinary surgeon if, when the tumour could be removed, the horse could be put under chloroform. The reply of the veterinary surgeon was that it was quite impossible to use chloroform for the operation, and that the tumour could not be taken out if the horse was so anæsthetised. The owner was very much surprised, and consulted another veterinary surgeon, or wrote to a college of veterinary surgeons, and was informed that the operation was perfectly possible under chloroform, and that it had constantly been performed under chloroform
at the veterinary colleges. Owing, unfortunately, to his obtaining this information rather late the operation had meanwhile been performed without chloroform. The tumour had been removed, but in order to stop the bleeding a red-hot iron had been applied to the place. This journal—devoted to the interests of the veterinary profession—that I am quoting comments very severely—and very properly I think—upon this entire lack of knowledge, and indeed brutality, which was displayed by this veterinary surgeon. They add this comment:
Upon the whole there is nothing to be gained by cloaking matters of this kind, and, unfortunately, the incident is not an isolated one.
When such language is found in a veterinary journal and such strong comment is made on the action of veterinary surgeons, it shows that there is a need for an alteration in the law. I gather from what I have read that these proposals are accepted by the veterinary Press practically with unanimity, and I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his public-spirited action in bringing the Bill forward I think this measure is necessary to stop the ignorant or careless veterinary surgeon from pretending that it is not possible to perform an operation on animals under anaesthetics. Even in this country, where I believe the standard of kindness to animals is higher than in any other country in the world, there always will be found a few brutal, callous, or careless men, and owners of animals, who will refuse to administer anæsthetics unless they are compelled to spend the small sum which is necessary to provide an anæsthetic.
Often if a veterinary surgeon insists upon there being an operation, the owner of the animal frequently goes to some kind of quack, or what we call a cow doctor in the South of England, who is not a certified veterinary surgeon, but who performs veterinary work for poorer clients. The work of these cow-doctors will be curtailed under this Bill, and the work will be given to properly certified veterinary surgeons. That is another point which is made by the veterinary journals, and there are a great many operations performed on animals which can be done with greater efficiency under anæsthetics. I have been associated on a large scale with the use of horses and camels in the Army in my regiment, and
I have seen a vast number of operations on animals, and what I have seen, geneally resolves itself into a sort of gymnastics, and if you get an ignorant man operating; without an anæsthetic, he generally puts the animal into a state of terror from which it does not recover for months or even years. I have served in the Camel Corps during the War, and I may say that the Imperial Camel Corps was the first example where operations were performed with anæsthetics, and this has been done on a very extensive scale. I know that in this way certain operations have been performed which could not otherwise have been carried out.
It is not necessary for me to glorify this Bill any further, because I am sure the present House of Commons will be ready to show its sympathy with this measure, and hon. Members will be only too ready to pass it into law. I support this measure because I think it is going to do away with a lot of avoidable cruelty which takes place during operations on animals, although I am a strong opponent of another Bill which will shortly come before the House. That measure, however, has nothing to do with this Bill, which is simply a question of alleviating animal suffering, and it ought to enlist the sympathy of all who have had experience of operations on animals.

Sir WTSON CHEYNE: I desire to express my cordial sympathy with this Bill. Perhaps on this question I feel more sympathetic than many other people, because one of the great grievances of those who have been employed trying to discover the secrets of nature by experiments on animals has been the persecution we have been put to by people who, in their dealings with animals for gain or pleasure, have had no regard whatever to suffering. I have been horrified to learn that so much is being done in the way of operations by a qualified set of men without anæsthetics. I have seen operations of this kind on animals, and my impression was that they were generally given anæsthetics, but I see from the journals I have read that that is not always so. I am glad to say that on this occasion I am in accord with one or two of my hon. Friends with whom I am afraid I shall not be in such close accord in connection with another Bill, which will probably be dealt with a few weeks hence. I am glad my hon. Friends are paying attention to this matter, and are trying to stop these
practices. They have a very big work to do, because when you are only dealing with this question for research purposes only a small number of animals are affected, but when you come to deal with all these operations which are done with a view of making animals more valuable, you will find that you have got a much larger matter to deal with.
I have no real criticisms to offer, but one thing which strikes me is that in speaking of anæsthetics in this Bill there is only mention made of local anæsthesia, which has developed very much of late years, and operations can be performed in that way without the patient suffering any pain. Personally, I never did like operating under a local anæsthesia, because I could never divest myself from the idea that I was hurting the patient, and consequently I was inclined to bustle over the operation. In recent years local anæsthesia has been developed to such an extent that I believe many of these operations could be performed under that head. There is just another point which strikes me. Anti-vivisectionists are the most unbelieving people in the world; they have a suspicion whether the animals which are experimented upon are under an anæsthetic: they say that they are only under morphine or some other means of keeping them quiet and that they really feel pain all the time. I see by Clause 4 that
the general anaesthetic shall include choral hydrate, and, in the case of a dog, morphine.
They are extremely useful because they enable you to get the patient unconscious and free from pain with a very much smaller quantity of anæsthetic. I do not, therefore, say that they ought not to be used, but I do say that a dog who has been given morphine will not be entirely free from feeling pain unless you give him a dose which is absolutely poisonous. These, however, are really Committee points, and I only wish to say again that I have no doubt that all medical men cordially support the Bill.

Sir J. BUTCHER: My hon and gallant Friend who introduced this Bill is heartily to be congratulated not only upon its introduction, but upon having obtained practically the unanimous assent of the House to its provisions. It is satisfactory to know that he has the support of men acquainted with horses, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who, I hope, is going to win
some races to-morrow. I am not generally a supporter of his, but he owns racehorses and as such is interested in the breeding of horses. My hon, and gallant Friend also has the support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who has the advantage of having studied horses as a Master of Foxhounds, and also in his gallant services during the War. I want to refer to a subject which is not included in the Bill, but which I think ought to be included when it comes to the Committee stage, and that is the question of docking. If docking is to be performed at all, it ought to be performed under an anæsthetic. For my part, I think docking for almost every class of horse, if not all, is a stupid and ignorant and pernicious practice. A hundred years ago they used not only to dock horses' tails but to dock their ears as well and disfigure one of the most beautiful features of a horse. The practice of docking the ears of a horse, I am glad to say, has disappeared and the practice of docking horses' tails is also disappearing. If you look at old prints you will find that racehorses were docked. Personally, I cannot over remember myself seeing a race in modern times were racehorses' tails were docked, and now it is the universal practice not to dock racehorses. I remember, in my younger days, that it was very common to have hunters with their tails docked, but it is very rare now. If you keep a tail reasonably short, it not only looks far better, but it is far more useful to the horse, because physiologically the tail acts as a rudder to the horse when it is galloping and jumping. I cannot, therefore, conceive that there is any useful object in docking racehorses and hunters. It was thought to look well, but, as a matter of fact, it looks exceedingly bad. There may be certain classes of trappers which are apt to kick if they get the reins under their tails with inexperienced drivers, and it may be convenient to dock them. Personally, I do not think it is necessary. It is quite sufficient to keep the tails reasonably short. If, however, you are to allow it at all I do urge upon my hon. and gallant Friend to support an Amendment in Committee including docking in the Schedule as one of those operations which require an anæsthetic. Let me quote the "Veterinary Journal," a paper of acknowledged importance and authority. They do not take quite such an unfavourable view as I do, because they seem to think that in some cases it is necessary, but they say:
There is no reference in this Bill to the vexed question of docking. In our opinion the practice of chopping off portions of the tails of certain breeds of dogs and of horses, with the possible exception of hackneys and light trappers, is absolutely indefensible as a routine practice. There are certain occasions when it must be done, but when it is necessary it should be under the influence either of an anæsthetic or a narcotic.
To anyone who has had experience of how docking is done in country districts, that statement will carry conviction and command agreement. In country districts it is done by putting the horse's tail over the stable door or on a wall and chopping it off at one of the joints with a hatchet, and then using some hot iron in older to stop the bleeding. A most gratuitous, unnecessary, and cruel performance, very difficult to discover. Unless you have an inspector present, it is impossible afterwards to bring up that man, because he will say that it was done with the utmost care and attention, and that there was no cruelty whatever. Docking is not illegal, but cruelty is, and the difficulty is to prove the cruelty. I therefore hope that the representative of the Home Office will give his cordial support to this Bill, and will be willing, when it comes to Committee, to insert docking in the Schedule as one of the operations to be performed under an anæsthetic,

Sir WILLIAM WHITLA: I just want to say that I do not believe that you would get one dissentient voice among the 25,000 medical men. I believe that they would all accept this Bill with satisfaction and with very great pleasure. I want to associate myself with all that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Bill. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for South Hackney, who told us that he only represents the class of racehorses—I think he also ably represents the class of hackneys—

Mr. BOTTOM LEY: South Hackney!

Sir W. WHITLA: I think he may be perfectly satisfied that, docking can be adequately dealt with by the use of local anæsthetics, and if on the Committee stage of the Bill docking is included among the operations to be dealt with in that manner, I think that is all that is required. The Bill should also be applied to dogs. If there is one fault in the Bill it is that it does not go far enough. I cannot see why colts under two years should be exempted.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: The reason is that you cannot under a general
anæsthetic perform the operation which is now almost universally applied to colts standing. There was a tremendous amount of opposition to the Bill in its original form because it applies to colts.

Sir W. WHITLA: But surely the operation can be done under a local anæsthetic, and there is no reason why animals should be allowed to suffer pain for one moment.

Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: I should like to give my unqualified support to this Bill. I think the whole course of our training is to try as far as possible to reduce pain to an absolute minimum, not only so far as human beings are concerned, but also in the case of animals. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has introduced this Bill, but may I suggest that in Committee its provisions should be extended to other animals than those mentioned in the Schedule, and that the question of docking should be taken into serious consideration by the framers of the measure? I agree with my colleagues that a very large number of operations can be performed efficiently with local anæsthetics instead of with general anæsthetics. There is no doubt about that. I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is quite satisfied that it would be possible to give general anæsthetics to animals in all the cases mentioned in the Bill. The progress of veterinary science and veterinary surgery has been extraordinarily great during the last few years. We all know the difficulty of giving animals, and especially horses, general anæsthetics, and it might be that the extension of the list of operations under local anæsthesia might be less harmful to some animals than an attempt to give general anæsthetics. I hope that in Committee the principle of the Bill will be extended not only to dogs but to other animals. With these suggestions, I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member upon introducing a measure which will greatly mitigate cruelty to animals.

2.0 P.M.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: May I say at once, on behalf of the Home Office and of the Board of Agriculture, that we do not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill? The measure itself is backed by Members sitting in all quarters of the House, and those who have spoken in support of it have done so with a special knowledge of the animals to which it refers. I would
also congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness) on having succeeded in getting this Bill on the Paper to-day. He will certainly be successful in securing its Second Reading. But I want him and the hon. Gentlemen who support him to allow the Board of Agriculture or the Home Office when the Bill gets into Committee to make certain Amendments not with the object of affecting the principle of the Bill, but with the object, in the first place, of bringing the penalty and appeal Clauses into line with the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. I must also qualify my acceptance of the Bill by retaining the right to introduce at the proper time words or a new Clause to this effect:
that nothing in the Act shall apply to any experiment to which the: Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 applies
I am sure I shall have the hon. and gallant Member's support in that Amendment. There may be other Amendments in Committee put forward by the Departments for which I speak to-day to more clearly define or qualify certain words and phrases and to make the Bill more accurately secure an object which I think is most laudable. I have nothing further to say, except that I whole-heartedly agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), to the effect that this great country has always set the standard of humanity in the animal world. There is no finer characteristic surely than this, that wherever the Britisher goes he is a missionary to the dumb creation. He carries his sense of justice and fair play into the animal world. We have our reward for that in the fact that we do produce the finest animals the world knows.

Dr. M'DONALD: I wish to support my medical colleagues who have already spoken on this subject. As the hon. and gallant Member for Wavertree (Lieutenant-Colonel Raw) has just remarked, our one object in life is to endeavour to alleviate pain in any direction we can, no matter whether it be in the case of human beings or in the case of animals. I would like to point out to the framers of this Bill one anomaly which to my mind is embodied in it, if we take it in association with the Dogs Bill. It is that under the Dogs Bill anæsthetics are to be given for the purpose of operations, and if the pain continues after the operation the dog is to
be destroyed. Under this Bill the anæsthetic is to be given, but apparently there is no provision with regard to the suffering of the animal after the operation. I strongly support the Bill in every way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I beg to move,
That the Rill be now read a second time.
This is the third Bill down for Second Reading to-day, and I hope the House will grant it that stage with the same alacrity and cordiality of support as has characterised its reception of the previous Bills. The first Bill dealing with check-weighing affected wages. The second Bill, regarding anæsthetics, dealt with the animal world. This Bill deals with the prevention of a loathsome disease in the woollen industry in different parts of this country. The Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading today follows the unanimous Report of a Departmental Committee representing all interests of the tirades in wool—a Committee which sat for several years and which produced a unanimous Report, the main essentials of which are incorporated in this measure. Anthrax is a germ disease of world-wide distribution. Hoofed animals are particularly susceptible to it and infection is conveyed through skins, hides, v.col, hair and bristles to workers who come into contact with these materials. The disease usually takes one of two forms, namely, cutaneous or external anthrax caused by the virus gaining access to the system through an abrasion of the skin, and secondly, pulmonary or internal anthrax, caused by inhalation of the virus. Internal anthrax is almost invariably fatal. It is generally, or almost invariably, brought into this country by imported wool, hair or skins. Bradford, especially, has a notable record in endeavouring to fight this disease, but in spite of the precautions there has been a steady increase in reported cases of anthrax during the past twenty years in the woollen and allied trades. I would like to read two or three lines of statistics
to bring to the attention of the House the mortality caused. From 1896 to 1900 there were fifty-six cases; 1901–5, ninety-eight; 1905–10, 130; 1911–15, 164; and 1916–18, three years only, 198. The proportion of fatal cases was approximately 25 per cent, in each period. In the case of internal anthrax it is almost invariably fatal. The Committee, after years of deliberation and visits to various part of the country, were unanimous in recommending that the principle of compulsory disinfection of wool affected be adopted, and that principle is adopted in the Bill. A special Sub-committee investigated the possibilities of disinfection as a practical and commercial matter, and they appear to have been completely successful in having produced a process which is effective in eliminating the germ of anthrax without affecting the material itself.
The Bill contains two important provisions; first, the power to prohibit by Order in Council the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected by anthrax; and, secondly, there is power to the Secretary of State to provide and maintain the necessary works for the disinfection of infected goods and to make rules for the payment of fees by importers of the infected goods. Hon. Members will also notice that in the Bill the expenditure for carrying it into effect is restricted by the words,
to such an amount as the Treasury may approve.
The actual cost of setting up the first station for this essential work was estimated on a pre-war basis at £l8,000. The cost now is more likely to be between £40,000 and £50,000. As soon as the trial station is working, it is proposed to start with disinfecting East Indian goat-hair, the most dangerous of all varieties, of which between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 pounds are imported annually. There is an interesting development in connection with this question. In so far as this infected material comes from our own Empire, we have every reason to believe that our overseas Dominions and Colonies will help in stamping out the disease. New Zealand especially, and to some extent Australia, have already stamped out the disease. We hope the others will prevent the export of any material which can carry this wretched germ to the home country. There is now being established, under the auspices, I believe, of the League of Nations, an International Health Department, to
which no doubt this matter will be referred. It has already been discussed in fact as an international question, for the disease is a common enemy of mankind, and it is only by international action that this and other forms of disease can be ultimately stamped out. I do not wish to weary the House with any further explanation of the Bill, which I am sure in its purpose will appeal to hon. Members' sense of justice and humanity. The Bill is part of the policy of the Government to improve the lot of the country's workers by preventing a disease that now causes acute anxiety and unrest, and too frequently death, among those who labour in our great and essential wool and allied industries.

Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: I would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on introducing this very much needed measure. As a member of the medical profession. I am sure I can say that the whole profession welcomes this Bill as coming from a Government which is making a serious effort to diminish the sufferings of those who have to handle wool, especially wool which is infected. It is generally admitted that the whole of this dangerous disease is caused by wool arriving in this country which has previously been infected. The infection is conveyed to those who handle the wool. It is really more serious to those who have to convey wool on the docks and in other departments of transport It has been my unfortunate experience to have to deal with a large number of people in hospital suffering from anthrax. It is admitted that the septic forms of anthrax, after causing an intense amount of suffering, are practically always fatal. The statistics we have received to-day, showing that 25 per cent. of the cases of anthrax are fatal, refer practically entirely to the septic form. The other form of cutaneous anthrax, or wool-sorters' disease as it is commonly called, is conveyed from the infected wool to the part of the man's body which touches it, and causes malignant pustule. Everyone will welcome any steps which the Government can take to protect these workers, especially amongst wool, in Bradford and other places, from infection by this terrible scourge. At the same time, I hope that greater efforts will be made to
prevent wool from being infected before it arrives in this country. I know that is a difficult problem, but prevention is better than cure. If some drastic steps can be taken to disinfect wool before its shipment to this country, there would be less chance of disease among those who have to handle it. I sincerely hope that this Bill will pass and that every effort will be made by the Home Office to put it into operation, regardless of expense, because we must protect our workers who have to handle wool against the possibility of infection from such a dread disease as this. I support the Bill very cordially.

Sir W. WHITLA: I wish to associate myself with the congratulations to the learned Baronet. I think this is a Bill which need not entail any progressive demand upon the expenditure of the country. With the wonderful sources of research as regards the life and method of propagation of the anthrax microbe the disease of anthrax itself will be entirely stamped out. If there is any difficulty with commerce we medical men will be only too glad to help in every way possible to facilitate its progress.

Mr. G. THORNE: Knowing the fighting character of the hon. Baronet, I do not know whether he is quite happy amid such, absolute unanimity, but I should like to be associated in congratulating him on his very lucid and clear statement. It is a purely preventive measure in interests of health, and as such I heartily desire to join with my hon. Friends in supporting the measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a seconds time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday next—[Mr Pratt.]

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Two o'clock